Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (64058)	5/7/2008 11:47:25 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542797

I think you're inferring way to much. Well, no, actually, I'm not. Back in '79, the Senate Judiciary committee created a rule (Rule 4) that gave the minority the right to veto any nominee if all of the members of the minority agreed that the nominee was unqualified. Republicans and Democrats thought it was a good rule that protected the rights of both the minority and the majority. After all, the majority and the President ought to be able to find someone who at least one minority member of the Judiciary committee could agree was acceptable. However, in 2001, Orrin Hatch violated that rule. He decided that he could send a nomination out to the floor whatever the minority party thought. This decision on his part--and the shameless way that all of the Republican members of the committee went along with it--was the true root of the problems with Bush nominations. The way the Senate just rolled over for Bush was most definitely not what people had in mind in the late 18th century. You are simply wrong about that-=-apologies if you take offense at my flatly stating this, but I've studied it. One of the main grievances of the colonists against Britain was how the King (and Royal Governors here) controlled the judiciary. They did not want to duplicate that in the US. The Senate was supposed to have an active role in judicial nominations, not a passive one of just vetting qualifications.

To: Lane3 who wrote (64058)	5/7/2008 2:36:01 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542797

>> think you're inferring way to much. I'm talking about "advise and consent," too. My notion of advice is telling the pres when a nominee is unqualified, such as Myers. Of course, everyone told him that so the Senate didn't have to come to the rescue. It's not telling him that he needs to nominate someone who has certain political values.<< Karen - I think that "advise and consent" should go beyond merely looking at a resume and deciding that a nominee meets the minimum requirements. Could there not be judges on the bench who have the requisite qualifications, but whose interpretation of the Constitution is wacky? If a Senator believes that a Supreme Court nominee does not or would not interpret the Constitution in a reasonable way, then I believe that Senator should vote against confirming him or her. - Allen